eHealth, Inc. (EHTH) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

All right. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining the eHealth fireside chat. My name is Daniel Grosslight. I'm the Citi health care technology analyst. And I'm very pleased to welcome Fran Soistman, the CEO; and John Stelben, the CFO of eHealth with us this afternoon. It's been a bit of a roller coster for the e-brokers, I think it's fair to say so I'm glad we have a chance to kind of dig into the sector and how eHealth has fared and changed a bit to deal with some of these -- some headwinds in this space.

So let's start with that kind of broader question to begin with. If I look back the past few years, the 2021 AEP season for you guys and sector broadly, was pretty difficult. I think everyone was kind of chasing growth because growth has been so good in 2020 and 2019. And the unit economics kind of broke down for a lot of folks. This AEP, I think it's been pretty apparent that things have changed and become a little more rational in the market. And hopefully, that's durable. But from a broad industry standpoint, can you give us a little color on kind of what happened over kind of the past couple of AEP periods? What's changed? And how durable some of the changes might be?

Well, first, thank you for having us, Daniel. It's good to see you. You're right, it has been, I think, an important change from '21 to '22 AEP. And I'm hopeful that this is more indicative of a future trend in terms of being rational. And back in '21, I mean, you have to understand that the -- I joined in November '21. AEP was pretty well baked by the time I took over companies had been rewarded for top line growth. I think their stock prices reflected that because of 606. And that begin, when it changed, it changed dramatically and it changed quickly. Our competitors, if you look at their balance sheets, they have a lot of debt. And I'm sure those debts have covenants that certainly limit their ability to spend at the rates that they may have spent in the previous years. So the reality is that, I think between a combination of stock price pressure, capital limitations and maybe even covenant requirements that at least our public company competitors are -- we have definitely seen a behavior change, more rational, everyone communicated well in advance of AEP that growth would be lower than previous years. I think the private companies, they too face some challenges because the attractiveness of the sector has changed because of the competitive dynamics. And I don't think they're necessarily in a position to renew their capital requirements going forward. So yes, it's -- we're at an inflection point. There's no doubt about it, in my mind, where an inflection point. But I think it bodes well for the industry and it bodes well for consumers, getting us really focused on quality, focused on retention. And obviously, top line, bottom line growth have to be aligned.

Yes, yes. Is there a bit of a prisoner's dilemma type of problem in this industry, meaning this year, everyone kind of stepped back and took a breath. But is there an issue where maybe if one of your competitors really pushes on the gas next year, you have to do the same? Or are you willing and able to take a step back and say, you do what you do. I'm going to focus on my quality.

So it reminds me of the old expression that our parents used to say to us, if Johnny's going to jump off the cliff, are you going to jump off with him. And of course, there's only 1 right answer to that. So I think that applies to the business world as well that we're at eHealth, we're disciplined. It's a very different company today than it was 16 months ago, disciplined, focused on profitable growth, not growth at the expense of the bottom line, and that's going to serve our shareholders well. It's going to serve our carrier partners as well, too. Because they also know that we are focused on the customer experience and very much aligned with how they see the world. It's all about making sure that beneficiaries are sold the product that best addresses their needs and preferences, that's going to begin to affect in a positive way, the rapid disenrollment rates, reducing CTMs, which we -- that eHealth have experienced of rather dramatic reduction in CTMs thus far. It's going to, I think, be a more rational, more stable environment and growth will come. Growth will come, growth will come through just pure demographics. I mean, the reality is of 11,000 people waiting in the Medicare eligibility every day haven't changed. And the runway is still long in terms of reaching 80 million to 83 million Medicare eligibles over the next decade. So that bodes well. Plus we don't focus exclusively on Medicare. We've got individual, we've had MedSupp, ancillary products our new focus on dedicated carrier arrangements further diversifies our portfolio and allows us to manage our cash more effectively than we previously did. So I'm as encouraged as ever about eHealth's future in this space.

Yes. Yes. And we'll definitely touch on some of those newer areas as well. But sticking with Medicare Advantage and just more broadly from the space in general, it's come under a little bit of pressure, Medicare Advantage more recently. You've got the RADV audits, you've got an advance notice that wasn't generous, let's put it mildly. How do you think about the macro slowdown in Medicare Advantage and some of these headwinds facing the space in general?

You're right. I mean the storm clouds have been gathering. And sequentially, it really started with the Star scores resetting. And that impacts the industry's ability to buy down the benefits, as they say, through the rebate process. The RADV ruling, I think shut the industry. But I think in terms of the retroactive component and the perspective, I think they probably have accrued for that exposure. That's more of a prospective issue in terms of how error rates are extrapolated. And it's real. I mean it's not to be taken lightly. And then, of course, the advanced notice could see maybe a modest improvement over that. That remains to be seen. But historically, it's been the case. So I've asked this question a lot, Daniel. And there isn't an answer that I think can be applied uniformly across the industry. I think there's some carriers that are in a much better place to navigate the challenges that lie ahead. I think there's -- the large carriers, in particular, have great sensitivity to avoiding a volatile book of business. They want to protect their block. And having -- been on the carrier side for most of my career, I can say that there is far more sophistication today in understanding the implications of benefit changes to preserve that $0 premium, which is all important in the Medicare Advantage space. So I think that they're going to have to thread the needle carefully. It will be challenging. But I think everything is on a contract-by-contract basis. With the exception of the advanced notice, right, the rate adjustment. So you may see some volatility in certain geographies and less in others and none in others. I think it's going to be a mix.

Safe to say, though, that we will see -- in geographies that are effective, we will likely see benefits -- supplemental benefits come down a bit over...

Again, so much logical place to start. Yes.

Yes. And how do you think that's going to impact your business in those areas?

Well, again, we are the mechanism to make sure that beneficiaries are getting the best value for either the $1 spent in premium more than $0 premium. But nevertheless, our challenge will be understanding where the volatility is most likely to occur and to be proactive with our existing book of business to make sure we avoid a switching scenario where they choose not to shop with us to make that switch. There's no reason for us to lose a customer other than through mortality. I've said that since I joined the organization. It's -- and it's really a call to action to be proactive anticipate where the disruption could be the greatest and make sure that we're out in front of it. And there likely will be more shopping in certain areas because to the extent that carriers were not able to mitigate these changes in a way that either preserved the $0 premium or didn't result in a lot of benefit changes, people are going to shop.

Yes. Remind me what your recapture rate is these days.

Historically, it's been about 10%and I can see that improve.

Where do you think that can go up to?

Well, as we continue to enhance the eHealth brand, which is one of our key strategies, from this point forward, I think that number should go up, and I'd like to say it should move up on an accelerated basis once we really gain the traction with the branding initiatives. I'll share a quick story with you. We did focus groups back in December with consumers or beneficiaries. They didn't know it was eHealth. And the moderator shared the eHealth experience, the shop, the educate, the advice, the enroll experience. And the reaction from people were, does this exists? I mean they were excited about it because it was described as a company that could provide multiple choices that best align with your needs and preferences, and it doesn't cost anything.

And was unbiased.

Unbiased. Yes. And the reaction was, I mean, it's all on camera, right? So you can actually see it and you can hear it. Amazing. So when eHealth's name was introduced, people were writing it down. They wanted to know more, they wanted to go on to our website right away. So I think by telling our story in terms of what we do, how we do it and the value to beneficiaries, I see a lot of good things coming out of that.

Yes. Yes. And let's now dig into some of the shifts at eHealth specifically, more recently. Fran, you mentioned you came in at, I don't know, probably the most difficult AEP period of eHealth and a tenure in Medicare. I don't know if that's fair. But you kind of -- that was already baked when you had arrived, but you got a high level view of what was going on. What surprised you the most when you first joined eHealth and what were your kind of first calls to action.

Well, I knew eHealth, I mean I was familiar with eHealth because of relationships that I had on the carrier side. But I didn't have that more up close and intimate understanding. And I think once I got much more familiar with our online platform, and saw its true capabilities and knew that there was still opportunities to evolve it further to make that customer experience even more effective. I got pretty excited about that. I mean we're an omnichannel distribution organization. We have a telephonic capability that didn't perform great in '21 but performed incredibly well in '22. And again, with upside potential there that we want to help realize. But the online experience, we introduced chat last year, that really made a -- I think it's fair to say a profound difference in our AEP and the other tools that we introduced to help our agents improve their effectiveness, more training, I got pretty excited about just being able to make a few changes in the limited time I have been there. That was something to get excited about. And to see it test it and now produce and know that there's still a lot of upside opportunities.

Yes. You just introduced '23 guidance a couple of days ago, which calls for around 6% top line growth and around $37 million of EBITDA improvement. Let's first dig into the drivers of that growth. It seems like at least for '23, much more of that growth is going to be driven by areas outside of the core commissioned MA line item. You mentioned IFP is big for you. Your BPO offering is really big for you, MedSupp and ancillary products. So curious what's driving that shift away from what I would consider your historic core strength in Medicare?

Well, I wouldn't say it's driving in a way. I think it's complementing. The dedicated carrier arrangement, broker record arrangements are really very comparable to what we do with eHealth. The only difference is in those arrangements were dedicated to a specific carrier. Different dedicated teams different legal entity, so that we preserve sort of the purity of eHealth being unbiased offering a broad range of choices. When we are dedicated, we're representing the ABC carrier. So that is complementary and it also is a more effective use of our cash because we don't have to spend the money on [ enGen ], that's [ enGen ] investments are the responsibility of the carrier. We're converting that. And of course, they have high expectations, appropriately high expectations that we're prepared to deliver on. We did in the past AEP. But the IFP, small group with the ICHRA opportunity, that's going to continue to gain momentum. We want to make sure that we're in lockstep with that opportunity. We're not trailing it. And I think it will continue to play an important part for years to come. Medicaid redetermination, difficult to quantify how that will play out because it's a state-by-state situation and in some states, we don't even play or not an option to provide shop by enroll experiences, but in many, we are. So I look at that as just being opportunistic. John, do you want to.

Yes, I would say a couple of things, Fran. At the midpoint, it looks like 6%, but when you take tail out, it's closer to 8% and underneath that, Medicare Advantage is growing right around the mid-single digits. So that business still continue to move forward. We touched on -- a little bit on the new BPO business, which -- that's a couple of points plus at the midpoint when you think about it. And even underneath the IFP business, while it had very positive tail, in 2022, and you adjust that out, it's still growing on an absolute sort of apples-to-apples basis. So we feel very good about the revenue growth, and we're doing it on a basis of virtually flattish year-over-year variable cost through improvement of more efficient marketing through better conversion rates and just -- I mean it's execution every day. And if you talk to Roman Rariy, who leads our call center and the sales masters he has put in place, our sales leader there, Bob Rees, stuff they do every day is amazing. And I came in during AEP, I've been here 3.5 months. And I went to the -- we have daily AEP meetings. And these guys were talking about how they did things hour by hour, it was incredible. And so from a CFO perspective, it gives you great confidence in our ability to execute going forward.

I'd add 1 more point, Daniel, and that is MedSupp. eHealth had acquired a MedSupp company a few years ago and really didn't do much with it and bringing that back into focus and putting resources and emphasis on growing it is one of our priorities. And you can sell that year round. There are markets that are clearly MedSupp markets and not Med Advantage markets, it might not even be available in certain counties, of course. So that keeps our sales advisers busy during the slower periods for MA. And it's still a very valuable and marketable product.

Better from a cash flow perspective as well?

I would say, yes, it's better from -- the LTVs are a little lower than the MA, but the cash flow dynamics generally are better.

On the dedicated business, are you able to size how big that is currently and where you think that can grow to eventually? And there's 2 parts to that business, right, the fee-based part and the commission base part. Is one growing faster than the other in terms of the model? And what does that mean for cash flow?

Sure. I'll start, and I'll ask John to keep the CEO honest. The -- prior to our win, which we announced on the earnings call, we didn't disclose the company and we can't out of respect for their wishes. But suffice to say, that is a transactional-based arrangement. So it's not broker of record. It's really fee-based and it is significant in that we are the primary vendor for their call center needs. We essentially become their call center. And there's still an opportunity to be secondary as well so that we would do overflow in addition to primary, but that's still being worked through. The economics are good. I'll let John comment further on that, but the economics are favorable. And as I said earlier, we don't need to have the cash outlay to generate the leads. So I like the business as supporting our goals to have a more balanced portfolio businesses and sources of revenue and EBITDA. It -- from a percentage of the business, it's small right now, but it has so much opportunity, I think winning this, even though we're not disclosing who it is, as we position ourselves for new additional RFPs, it's going to bring further credibility because it's a meaningful relationship.

Was that a -- I'm sorry.

No, I was just going to say, I mean, underneath it, it's a good margin business for us because you're getting your cost covered plus you can get a success fee on your conversions. And given the quality of the leads that are coming in, we should have -- get a high success fee of that. In addition, as in any call center, there's going to be overflow and our goal is to capture that overflow as well in our traditional BOR business. So I think it, for instance, it's a springboard to doing more of these types of arrangements going forward.

Was this a competitive takeaway? Or were they handling it themselves and just outsourced it?

I think it's fair to say it was a competitive takeaway.

And is this a trend, a bigger trend at the carriers shopping these around? Or is this just a -- is it more of a focus for you that's driving this?

Well, I don't know if I'd go as far as saying it's a current trend. I hope it's an emerging trend and then when you demonstrate to a carrier that you not only understand their compliance responsibilities with respect to the customer experience, but can deliver results that are consistent with what they did or better. That is going to, I think, increase confidence that outsourcing is a viable alternative to having it insourced. So we are -- we just are focused on delivering the performance at all levels from a volume perspective, conversion, the customer experience, satisfaction and certain compliance. And I think it will take care of itself.

Yes. Let's turn to costs. You mentioned that variable costs are going to be pretty stable this year. And you've had some very good results, cutting fixed costs, if I look at what you're expecting to cut in fixed cost versus what you actually did in '22, I think you cut around $114 million. Sticking with the fixed cost for a second. Is there more wood to chop there? It would seem that most of your business is variable in nature, pay agents, pay leads. How much more on the fixed cost can you cut?

Yes. So I just want to say the $114 million year-over-year, the vast majority of that was variable costs. So if you look at our fixed costs in the neighborhood of last year, it was in the high 140s. I think in -- so the things that we are doing there, we went virtual first earlier this year and so reduce the real estate footprint. There will be additional savings from the running on that this year. We're looking at all our vendor costs for improvements there, not just from the standpoint of actually reducing cost but also getting better working capital management terms out of that. We're looking at redundancies. For example, we have Zoom, and we have Microsoft Teams, and they each cost something. It's not a huge amount of dollars. But when you start going around an organization and you find 5 or 6, 7, 8 of these things, they add up over time. We did a lot of work around headcount and we'll always continue to look at that. And so you can think about in our implicit and our guidance is further fixed cost reduction actually year-over-year. And what's important about that is as we get back to top line growth, it's gaining leverage on those fixed costs to the extent you control that rate of growth at a rate of growth lower than your revenue, you're obviously going to generate earnings on the leverage.

Yes. Yes. Makes sense. So let's talk about some of those variable costs. So this AEP you saw in a 23% reduction in ad cost for approved member. Have you changed your marketing strategy at all? And if so, what channels are you seeing the best ROI from right now?

I'll start that and invite John to supplement. We -- first off, I brought on a new Chief Marketing Officer in September. So she wasn't there in time to, I would say, make a dramatic impact on AEP, but she made important contributions to refining the strategy for this past AEP. We're going to be modifying that more dramatically in '23. And part of that is there's so much generic messaging out there. And it creates, I think, fatigue on the part of beneficiaries. They're inundated with direct mail and e-mails and TV commercials that are basically saying the same thing. So cutting through that clutter, so to speak, has to be done with a different message. And it has to be about the value proposition, why you should want to respond to eHealth's outreach because here's what we do for you. So it's not just focusing on the benefits that the carriers offer. That's important. Come in, let us help you, we will hand -- or you can come online and self-serve or get some assistance online. It's telling that story, the eHealth brand would be much more emphasis on that. The channels they perform differently, sometimes campaign by campaign. So in this past AEP, our affiliate channel performed well, the carrier channel performed well and the strategic partner channel performed well. We didn't do any DRTV in '22. We'll likely do some in '23, but it will be very targeted by markets. Health care is local. And if you see in 1 market, you've seen 1 market. So to do things on a national basis is I think it loses its effectiveness. In fact, I think it oftentimes leads to confusion when you communicate something that might only be available in certain markets and not widespread. The rebate was -- the Part B rebate is what -- one company in trouble because it's so limited in terms of its availability. But to do national commercials wasn't just service the beneficiaries.

Yes. yes. And speaking of going national to local, you've also kind of shifted how you're managing your agent force. And you've seen some good reductions in increase in productivity in your agent force. So curious how you've changed your strategy around managing your agents? And if there's been any issues with agent hiring or capacity recently.

Sure. Well, I'm going to start with the transformation activities that we launched last April, and that entailed among many things, rightsizing the sales organization. So we focused on our top performers that became the core group. And it wasn't just what they were doing in the past AEP. It's, are they willing to embrace change because that was in the cards. We're going to be making a lot of changes to our sales training. We call it sales mastery initiatives. And they have to be -- I mean, even though they may be effective, they may not be as effective as they could be if they embrace new techniques. Part of that is listening, just being better at listening to what the beneficiary is saying on the other side of the phone. So the work John intimated this earlier, that the work on the sales mastery side has been remarkable and I'm really pleased with its impact and improving sales agent satisfaction. They now have career pathing. That's new. That helps with retention. It's a very healthy, energetic environment, and that's a testament to the leadership and the sales organization under Bob Rees and Roman Rariy. They've done, I think, an excellent job along with their teams to create a culture that comradery, [indiscernible] but compliance focused as one of the keys, performance-driven. Attrition has been below our original forecast. So we're retaining agents. And that's a good sign. That helps us in terms of future recruiting, which we'll be starting shortly, because people talk and if it's a good environment, creating an environment where people can be successful. Why should they leave?

I would add, too, to that. Our tenured agents perform at a much higher level. And as we have put renewed focus on MedSupp. And it's something that we look to improve our sales in, call it the off quarters, Q2, Q3, Q1, it's also giving agents more tools in the toolbox to sell and to make themselves money, obviously. So, that helps.

Apart from giving them more opportunity to make money, has the compensation structure changed at all? Are you incentivizing agents now to select for persistency? Are you incentivizing them to follow up with someone who is likely to churn?

Well, the agents -- we would sort of draw a line between our sales advisers and what they should be focusing on versus our retention team. So we have dedicated resources on the retention side. But to your earlier -- your first question, our sales compensation, it gets modified pretty much every year, and it's a refinement and it's always intended to reward the right behavior. So they're not paid for rapid test enrollments, for example. There's a reconciliation on that. So -- and CTMs can be ultimately. There's a lag period, of course, but they're traced back to agents. So there's recognition of their performance from a quality perspective. So it's not just entirely production. It's a combination of factors. Again, with the intention of rewarding the right behavior. The oversight I don't want to lose an opportunity to share that because that's just as important in terms of the producing agents, it's the supervisors and managers who oversee their teams. One thing we did differently last year that I think helped with managing the attrit rate was the managers hired their sales folks as opposed to previous years where we had recruiters, out there determining who is going to join the organization. Now craters identify the candidates, but the managers hire them. And that has created, I think, a much more effective sales team process than previously. That's not all but important.

Yes. Yes. Let's talk about your online capabilities because I do view this as kind of your I guess, main differentiator as I look at the space, you can do kind of soup to nuts on eHealth from getting information but Medicare to actual enrollment all online. How are you thinking about that piece of the Medicare business? What percent of online or what percent of enrolled members can come in online eventually? And what percent are you at right now?

Well, I'll probably best to measure it year-over-year in terms of the growth. So it's up in '22 over '21. It was running just below 50% in '21, and now it's running just below 60%. So that tells me that beneficiaries are comfortable navigating it. That said, I'll tell you, Daniel, the conversion rate opportunity, improvement opportunities, I believe, are pretty significant. So we have over 11 million visitors to our website. And we move -- we get 100 basis point improvement on conversion, it's meaningful. It's very meaningful. So we're constantly looking at how do we make the experience better. Chat, introducing chat was an important addition last year. So there are people who can go self-serve and are very comfortable navigating it and others may get stuck at some point along the way and they can hit that help button or they can just call the number. And either way, we just want the experience to be good based on that individual's needs.

Yes. And as you see more tech savvy seniors, agent on Medicare, do you expect to see that accelerate? Or is it just some portion, 15%, 20% of population is always going to want to talk to an agent when dealing with Medicare?

Well, I can't size it. But I would say that your hypothesis is fair and that there's always going to be either 2 barriers. One, access to the technology. Not everyone has access and two, just there could be language barriers in terms of experiencing online versus telephonic, we can deal with multiple languages online. It's all English right now. That will be something we explore in the future. We want to reflect the changing demographics of America. So having those capabilities in the future will be important.

Yes. Let's talk about IFP. It's been a very good performer for you recently, and I think it's expected to do quite well this year, given the redeterminations. Can you talk a little bit about how not just the redeterminations might impact IFP this year, but also the extended SEP and how that might kind of change some of your seasonality this year and how?

Well, back to my earlier point, I believe it does represent an opportunity. The timing is still a little uncertain. I mean we think it's going to happen in May, June time frame. And but it's going to vary from state to state in terms of the opportunity, the implications, the disruption, how many -- what part of that population will be sort of recaptured by the existing carriers directly? That -- I think that will occur, and we're fine with that. That's the right outcome. We're there to help those who may not have been happy in the plans that we're in or in the benefits that they have and now it's an opportunity to have a fresh start. So it's hard to really size. I mean we know that there are obviously millions and millions of people that are affected by the redetermination. I would imagine the carriers will capture at least 25% of that. John, anything you want to add to that?

I would just say that this past year, we said that the ICHRA opportunity wasn't -- it didn't work for us as well as we had hoped, but we're prepared for that. I think that, that's going to be a large opportunity going forward as well.

Yes. That was my next question actually on ICHRA. We what happened? Why didn't it perform to your expectations in '22? And what's going to change in '23 to make this a larger opportunity?

I think the expectations we had with some of our partners were, so the word I'd use, they were larger than they really turned out to be. And so I think -- but again, the important thing I'd say is that just having to do the work to be ready for it and to know what to do, will serve us well in the future as we -- because we do believe that, that's going to be a pretty attractive market and it's continuing to grow over time. And so while it didn't work as well for us ss we like it to in '22, it just meant we're prepared for it as it continues to grow.

If you look back in history, anytime new alternatives were introduced, whether it was PPOs, point of service, high deductible health plans. There usually isn't -- there is always some first movers, but I think it's fair to say that it's an evolution. And I think that's what's going to happen with the individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements. It's -- I think it will gain traction because it's a great solution for employers who perhaps aren't in -- I mean it's an alternative to just dropping coverage, providing employees with a stipend that they can then go on to the individual market, provides greater portability for consumers. I like it. I mean I like it for a lot of reasons, and I do think it will pick up receptivity over the next couple of years.

Yes. Makes sense. Yes.

Yes, I'd just wanted to add ask you guys brand [indiscernible] as you look out for the next couple of years, how do you go want -- how do you think investors should be [indiscernible].

Well, thanks for the question. I think it's fair to say that we're grossly undervalued today, right, based on the net book value of the company. And trading at a little over $8 a share. I think it's maintaining the discipline, the innovation, the customer-centric commitment, winning carriers' confidence. Clearly, we got to demonstrate, I would say, attractive top line growth, but even more attractive bottom line growth including generating positive cash flow from operations. And that's our North Star. We are all in. The management team is all align. No one is confused about what we have to do and we have to do it on a sustainable basis. No one should wonder. We want to create greater predictability of what you can expect with eHealth in terms of its performance.

I would just add to that, Fran, profitable growth. And again, I just want to stress something, which is we have sufficient liquidity to meet our 2023 operating and guidance. And as we move forward and as we improve the profitability of this company, we're going to be able to deal with future capital needs from a position of strength.

That brings me to my closing question here on cash. So it's good to hear that you have that liquidity. But is it fair to say that you'll have enough liquidity to reach free cash flow breakeven as well? Or do you anticipate you'll need to, at some point, come back to the markets, whether it's the debt or equity markets?

Well, I would say what we said about in our guidance was because of the timing of our fiscal year versus how we get paid, that we would approach breakeven cash flow from operations in the first quarter of '24. When I think about the free cash flow and our CapEx, our CapEx is -- most of our CapEx is internally developed software. It's improvement to our website. That probably adds another 15 -- CapEx in total is probably $15 million to $20 million. So I think that is going to take us a little longer on the free side. But my focus is the first thing we have to do generate earnings. And we generate earnings, manage our cash well, eventually get cheaper capital. It'll all work.

And just 1 point. That's why it's so important to utilize the assets we have today that have been underutilized over the last several years in terms of the portfolio. There are products that already exist today in our portfolio that produce better cash flow dynamics. So it's not like we have to build them. They're there. We just have to execute.

Great. Well, we'll leave you on that. Thank you, everyone, for joining us, and thank you, Fran and John, for joining us today.

Thank you.

It's great to see you. Thanks, everyone.